That's obvious. There were more than 10mil people living in Asia Minor when the Turks arrived. The Turks couldn't have been more than 500000 at the time. It's simple maths. 500000 people don't assimilate 10mil, it's the other way around. But this is not what this guy is claiming.

sounds awfully familiar.

What is he claiming? Because that's what i got from the text.

It sounds awfully familiar to the "Trojans were Turkish" or "Sumerian was a form of Turkish" ramblings.

See what I mean? Anatolia did become Turkish after 1071 (quite later actually). This "scientist" is trying to tie cultural and genetic backgrounds. A huge number of Turks (compared to their original numbers) were turkified Greeks (many of which were themselves hellenised Syrians, Lydians, Phrygians even Celts) but is doesn't mean that they were Turks a priori. This is what I am getting from this article anyway.

that validates my idea of the greater part of Turks who are Islamoturkified
Greeks.

Hello cousins.

You got drifted away by some 10000 real Turks who came from central Asia and
converted you.

No problem with that, as long as you don't get in a identity crisis.

I've already heard this news from eslewhere - but I didn't know that the Turkish side planted it this way (which is reflected in the article)...


It's anachronistic to even speak of "the people of Turkey" - because "Turkey" is a newer term...

The people who lived there 40 000 years ago didn't call themselves "Turks" - nor the ones living there 1200 years ago...

I think this news is to be interpreted as such:

Only a few percent of the people in Turkey who are actually "Turkic" (in e.g. related to Central Asian peoples) genetically speaking...

The rest are of native blood - Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian etc...

And when it says "Jordanians" in the article - it means "Jordanians" not "Arabs" - because "Arabs" aren't of one single genetical background...

Ok, let me give more details because you're just trying to see a tie between Afet İnan and Mahmud Esat Bozkurt's 80 year old history thesis and this one. "Trojans were Turkish" ramblings were based on a Turko-centric history writing approach and actually those were just a part of a whole anachronistic induction project created to delete existing Ottoman culture and mentality which still existed in those days' Turkey. But if you put your "turks are claiming again that trojans were turks" obsession, you can see that this guy is saying something different. I'm not saying it to defend his views btw.

"Turk is an identity that we created today. Same way, Greek and Armenain identities are a cultural design and construct too. Turk is a modern concept and it was created in the last 200 years. History of the people living on this land starts thousands of years ago. So we can't call everybody Turk. Turkishness is about today. We created these concepts and called everybody Turk. We don't even know who are the ones before us. We're calling Uighurs Turk, but they are not calling themselves like that."


So as you see, while "Trojans were turks" ramblings were based on a high Turkish civilization that spread the world from Altay mountains bullshit, Binder even questions the Turk identity and says "only a little group of people immigrated from Central Asia and somehow they created an administrative and cultural transformation. But there isn't a significant genetic tie between Turks in today's Anatolia and Turks in Today's Central Asia. Similarities are not more than 15% of the gene pool of Anatolian people. So unlike our official history thesis, we don't need to look at central asia to see our ancestors.

But of course there are some illogical or missing points in the article. For example, i think Ottoman Empire's politics against alevi turks must be taken into consideration. They were massacred more than Greeks. And also Anatolia faced massive exoduses from Balkans and Caucasia especially in the 19th century. Immigrants make nearly 50% of the current population of today's Turkey. So like opti, i also do not believe that there is a strong lineage between ancient and today's people. But whether we agree or not, this is not "trojans were turks" rambling.

Una faca, una raca!

So, you mean that if the Greeks conquer china, then the chinese will be Greeks ?????

Awesome theory

When Greeks conquered Anatolia, many of the people living here (Syrians, Lydians, Phrygians, Celts, some Armenians) became Greeks. Do you think Greeks in Cappadocia region came here from Athens? Or pontians are not hellenized locals but grandsons of Iason?

Awesome theory

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza already contradicted that Central Asia myth. The migration from Central Asia did happen, but in very small numbers thus that population is not the ancestors to the modern Turkish population at large and contributed very little to the DNA makeup of modern Turkey.

Most Turks are people who simply would have considered themselves muslims until very very recently, who were given a Turkish identity very very very recently and violently by the Turkish state.

Timuçin Binder has to accept the Cavalli-Sforza works or not be accepted in any antropology circles outside of Turkey. I do not know if there are chauvinist Kemalist(fascist) anthropologists but if there are, their views will be lauged at abroad.

These were the results obtained from a study conducted by Cinnioglu et al:

Abstract Analysis of 89 biallelic polymorphisms in 523
Turkish Y chromosomes revealed 52 distinct haplotypes
with considerable haplogroup substructure, as exemplified
by their respective levels of accumulated diversity at
ten short tandem repeat (STR) loci. The major components
(haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%)
are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern
populations and contrast with only a minor share of haplogroups
related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%), Indian
(H, R2; 1.5%) and African (A, E3*, E3a; 1%) affinity.

source:http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2...14_p127-148.pdf

Genetically Turkey is no different than the neighboring countries. The original Altaic Turks had more of a cultural impact on Anatolia (e.g. Turkic language, Islam etc) rather than a genetic one.
The population of modern day Turkey is made up of Anatolian aboriginals and Balkanian/Caucasian Muhajirs.

Most people with a Central Asian apperance in Turkey are usually of Crimean Tatar descent e.g. Ilhan Mansiz.

The same processes occured in Hungary where the Magyars invaded but didnt make a major impact on the native population.

- There are a lot of sources that prove that the origninal popultation on the west coast of little asia where the same as the athenians. (same greek dialect etc.)
- There are lots of sources that proves that byzantion (konstantinoupoli, istanbul) was founded by greeks.
- there are a lot of sources that prove that the pontians were greeks who had settled there in order to make trade with the people around the black sea easier.

I have searched many other sources and i came to the find that the only other people in anatolia in the years aound 2500-2000 B.C. were hittites, who were very friendly with the greeks and vice versa.

I haven't found any resources that claim a greek massacre on hittites or hittites on greeks.

In fact most probably the hittite culture dissapeared likely in same time with the minoan. Probably by some nature catastrophe like a tsunami originated from the outburst of the vulcano of thera.

The Hittites covered a vast area... Not even ten natural catastrophes could whipe them out in such a manner... From the black sea to the Tigris and to the Mediterranean - that's a huge and diverse area...

while there would have been some settlement from mainland Greece into Anatolia to say that all the Anatolian Rum were descended from these settlers would be wrong imo.

the majority of the Rum were/are descended from local Anatolian tribes who over time became Hellenized, hence why they have such a different culture, dialects etc.